Watch the language- insulting other members will result in thread bans, infractions, and other unpleasantness if it continues.

This is the only public warning- points to follow past this point

Is there any firm news about this or are we still going on rumors?

efikkanWhy are you sugar-coating it?
Vega is the largest failure in many years for AMD, and there is no reason to buy it for gaming. So when a product is inferior, the fans keep focusing on theoretical specs over actual performance…

Funny how a chip that beats the GTX1080 in almost every new game, is such a failure and not worth buying for gaming.

MrMilliFunny how a chip that beats the GTX1080 in almost every new game, is such a failure and not worth buying for gaming.

It's not that hard to beat another card in raw performance. Just this doesn't make Vega 64 great.
Look at the cost of this: power consumption, heat, size, loudness.
Yes, performance is there. But should you buy this card? No. 1080 is better.

Is Vega 56 more sensible choice - worth considering? It was at the time of release, but NVIDIA - thanks to a much better tech and way more flexibility - answered it in matter of months.

Expectations were great and AMD told us many things about what Vega would be. And they failed to deliver.

notbIt's not that hard to beat another card in raw performance. Just this doesn't make Vega 64 great.
Look at the cost of this: power consumption, heat, size, loudness.
Yes, performance is there. But should you buy this card? No. 1080 is better.

Is Vega 56 more sensible choice - worth considering? It was at the time of release, but NVIDIA - thanks to a much better tech and way more flexibility - answered it in matter of months.

Expectations were great and AMD told us many things about what Vega would be. And they failed to deliver.

Power consumption is no higher than a GTX 1080 Ti

Temperatures run about on average around the same as most 1070s and 1080s

Noise is almost non existent

Idk where you guys find your information

Durvelle27Power consumption is no higher than a GTX 1080 Ti

Actually, power consumption is quite a bit higher than a GTX 1080Ti.

Durvelle27Temperatures run about on average around the same as most 1070s and 1080s

Temperature is not the same as heat. The heat output is significantly higher on Vega, that is the point. The temperatures are pretty close because Vega has higher noise because of the fans running faster to keep the temps under control.

Durvelle27Noise is almost non existent

By "non-existatnt" do you mean almost twice as loud as nVidia's cards?

But, yeah, Vega is such a success and such a great GPU. Just look at all the card manufactures that are releasing all their custom designed Vega cards. The manufacturers are really embracing Vega and running with it...oh wait...

Durvelle27Power consumption is no higher than a GTX 1080 Ti

Durvelle27Idk where you guys find your information

ehhh... from your own graph?


The data you posted shows it uses 10%-15% more power (and its 25% slower than a 1080ti). For those who care, thats a problem. ;)

newtekie1Ryzen = 24 lanes = 16 for Graphics, 4 for NVMe, 4 for link to Chipset
Intel CFL = 20 lanes = 16 for Graphics, 4 for link to Chipset

With Intel, none of the NVMe drives are running from the CPU itself because of the limited PCI-E lanes from the CPU.

Sorry mate, the lane config is like this:



M.2 gen 3.0 slots on X370 boards are wired to the CPU, and unlike Z370 boards, you can't have three gen 3.0 M.2 slots. That's the shortcoming.

Or, you could buy Intel now and get better performance today rather than paying more in the long run by constantly upgrading your CPU just to “maybe” keep up with current Intel’s offerings.

I upgraded only because something broken, all this takes time and money + electricity bill is rising. to 40 Euro for one home.

Hell, I've still gotta machine in the house running a 770 chipset with Vishera. Sure, Vishera support on the 770 chipset is kinda weird, but it still works. USB 3.0+ is so overrated---who needs 10x the speed?:laugh:

Good thing. :)

Having a choice to keep the same mobo, also memory at times, & upgrade to a better CPU down the road is something that many of us expect from Intel, just like AMD's done in the past.

Why would you expect such behavior from intel, when intel has not been doing that for almost a decade now?

R0H1TApart from NVMe & DDR4 what new feature have you seen in the last 2+ years that compels you to upgrade your mobo?

Also AMD has a superior design now with the SoC style Ryzen, Intel on the other hand is still vastly limited by DMI on their desktop chipsets.

Counter-point, what tech in the CPU world makes you want to upgrade while sticking to an older motherboard? I have an ivy bridge i5. There is 0 performance upgrade in me moving to much of anything else for gaming, as it maintains over 60FPS in every title that isnt GPU limited. I sure wouldnt want to put a coffee lake CPU into my now outdated mobo, with only 2 USB 3 ports, no M.2, no PCIE boot, ece.

May want to make a huge deal about upgrading CPUs, but when the now 5 year old i5 2500k can still play every new game properly, what is the point of upgrading and keeping your ancient z68 motherboard?

Alternatively, by making a backwards compatible design, you hamstring future improvement, as AMD has done. AM4 is PCIE limited, and only a new socket will fix that, which would break backwards compatibility. This is not an issue for intel, whom can change their socket whenever they like.

In an era of decade old CPUs, the ability to upgrade just the CPU doesnt have the necessity that it did back in 2005.

btarunrSorry mate, the lane config is like this:



M.2 gen 3.0 slots on X370 boards are wired to the CPU, and unlike Z370 boards, you can't have three gen 3.0 M.2 slots. That's the shortcoming.

That chart isn't right. Ryzen processors only provide 24 lanes, 4 of which are used for the connection to the chipset, leaving 4 lanes for an NVMe drive and 16 for graphics, for 20 total usable lanes from the CPU. I'm guessing the error is that whoever made that chart took the platform total, 28, and mistakenly put that in as the number coming from the CPU. Then they added the 8 from the chipset to that wrong 28 number to get 36. But there are still other issues with the chart, like including lanes used for the chipset into the number of lanes provided by the AMD platform, but not on the Intel, making Intel look even worse than it really is. It basically makes AMD look like they have 4 more lanes than they should compared to Intel, since they both use 4 lanes for the connection to the chipset. So it should list either 24 for AMD and 20 for Intel if you are including the chipset lanes, or 20 for AMD and 16 for Intel if you aren't including chipset lanes.

AMD's own information confirms the lane counts:


They show 28 lanes total, 8 of which are Gen2 from the Chipset, that leaves 20 from the CPU. They also show that Threadripper gives 68 lanes total, not 72, 8 of which are Gen2 from the chipset, leaving 60 from the CPU not 64.

And ASUS's block digram for the Crosshair VI Hero also shows 24 lanes:



Also, there is threadripper, which again is way off.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you on the shortcomings. But they aren't with the CPU, they are with the chipset, again agreeing with you. And an updated chipset is all that is necessary, one that provides more PCI-E 3.0 lanes for the platform, again agreeing with you. But I'm right on the lane configs, the chart you posted is way off.

Is the DMI included in the CPU lanes though?

notbIsn't this topic a bit worn out already?

Do we really need an article every month reminding us that AM4 can't afford to redesign the socket more often? Do we really need the comments stating that it's great?

Then do not read or participate in the article or conversation. Problem solved.

EarthDogIs the DMI included in the CPU lanes though?

That's the question. The chart btarunr posted includes the "DMI" between the CPU and chipset for the AMD platforms, but doesn't for the Intel. Yes, AMD comes right out and says they are using PCI-E lanes, and Intel doesn't. But come on, we all know Intel is just using PCI-E lanes. It isn't a coincidence that the DMI bandwidth is exactly the same as 4 PCI-E lanes and the DMI version goes up the same time the PCI-E version goes up.

newtekie1That's the question. The chart btarunr posted includes the "DMI" between the CPU and chipset for the AMD platforms, but doesn't for the Intel. Yes, AMD comes right out and says they are using PCI-E lanes, and Intel doesn't. But come on, we all know Intel is just using PCI-E lanes. It isn't a coincidence that the DMI bandwidth is exactly the same as 4 PCI-E lanes and the DMI version goes up the same time the PCI-E version goes up.

Pretty sure its not included. For example, x299 sli with kaby lake. A 16 lane cpu still goes to x8/x8 and the other devices are not affected. If they were included in that count, it would stand to reason x8/x8 isnt possible.

Great news for us people that can't afford to change everything for an upgrade. This will be great for APU users, ¿you want more CPU and GPU power? Just change the CPU, no new chipset+socket needed.

EarthDogPretty sure its not included. For example, x299 sli with kaby lake. A 16 lane cpu still goes to x8/x8 and the other devices are not affected. If they were included in that count, it would stand to reason x8/x8 isnt possible.

Yeah, but that is Intel's advertising. They say the CPU has 16, but it really has 20, but 4 are used for the chipset link. On the chart bta posted, the chipset link is being included in the AMD count, but not in the Intel. We just have to pick one. In the end, it doesn't change the point that AMD offers 4 more CPU lanes than Intel. So they really aren't being that stingy with the PCI-E lanes, they just need a better chipset that adds more lanes, they don't have to do anything to the CPU or socket to get more PCI-E lanes to compete with Intel.

dicktracyOr, you could buy Intel now and get better performance today rather than paying more in the long run by constantly upgrading your CPU just to “maybe” keep up with current Intel’s offerings.

good luck with that replacing your board every time

dicktracyOr, you could buy Intel now and get better performance today rather than paying more in the long run by constantly upgrading your CPU just to “maybe” keep up with current Intel’s offerings.

If performance is your only relevant metric, go get a server. The joke of upgrading boards every time is finally over.

eidairaman1good luck with that replacing your board every time

since you want to brandish a sword...

Enjoy missing out features just to keep your cpu to date? See my earlier post. ;)

Really, the cpu is the last thing people actually need to upgrade, yet, suddenly its a huge issue, we need to upgrade our cpus every 3 years? After 4/5, when most people actually want/need a cpu upgrade, ill want what the new chipset has to offer anyway. If you are sticking with a mobo for 6-8 years, chances are one may get an AIC or two which again cuts into any cost savings from hanging on to a mobo. Its also well past their 3 year warranty and more prone for failure the older it gets so...

....while i agree there fan be benefits from hanging onto a motherboard, i dont feel its benefits are as strong/worthwile as some people want it to be. :)

newtekie1Yeah, but that is Intel's advertising. They say l CPU has 16, but it really has 20, but 4 are used for the chipset link. On the chart bta posted, the chipset link is being included in the AMD count, but not in the Intel. We just have to pick one. In the end, it doesn't change the point that AMD offers 4 more CPU lanes than Intel.

ok, its wiki...so...

They say its SIMILAR to pcie in how it works, but doesnt mention anything about source of the bandwidth.

This anand review says amds x4 can be used for other things as well.. so maybe it is different?? Y9u cant touch those lanes for intel.
www.anandtech.com/show/11170/the-amd-zen-and-ryzen-7-review-a-deep-dive-on-1800x-1700x-and-1700/13

EarthDogReally, the cpu is the last thing people actually need to upgrade, yet, suddenly its a huge issue, we need to upgrade our cpus every 3 years? After 4/5, when most people actually want/need a cpu upgrade, ill want what the new chipset has to offer anyway. If you are sticking with a mobo for 6-8 years, chances are one may get an AIC or two which again cuts into any cost savings from hanging on to a mobo.

What about phase outs. Last gen or 2 gens down that CPU might still be functioning fine but something on the motherboard be it connectors or DIMM slot fails. Retailers don't keep old inventory around and for a replacement one has to turn to flee market/e-bay or second hand.

Now we are seeing a quicker turn over from Blue.

Motherboards get revision updates as well.

EarthDogok, its wiki...so...

They say its SIMILAR to pcie in how it works, but doesnt mention anything about source of the bandwidth.

Check there white paper its 4 (2-T x 2-R ) lanes

EarthDogsince you want to brandish a sword...

Enjoy missing out features just to keep your cpu to date? See my earlier post. ;)

Really, the cpu is the last thing people actually need to upgrade, yet, suddenly its a huge issue, we need to upgrade our cpus every 3 years? After 4/5, when most people actually want/need a cpu upgrade, ill want what the new chipset has to offer anyway. If you are sticking with a mobo for 6-8 years, chances are one may get an AIC or two which again cuts into any cost savings from hanging on to a mobo. Its also well past their 3 year warranty and more prone for failure the older it gets so...

....while i agree there fan be benefits from hanging onto a motherboard, i dont feel its benefits are as strong/worthwile as some people want it to be. :)

ok, its wiki...so...

They say its SIMILAR to pcie in how it works, but doesnt mention anything about source of the bandwidth.

Who says I was brandishing a sword?If I did it would be literally with a .45 ;) (who brings a sword to a gun fight lol)

What I don't understand is all the hate.

Thought all y'all liked competition to lower prices, guess not...

I think this thread has run its course.

I'm glad AMD merged 2 platforms that didn't happen previously.

Amd made Intel panic, which is progress, vs sitting on a platform from 2012.

/thread